{
  "id": "2019-06-04_regular",
  "meeting_date": "2019-06-04",
  "meeting_type": "regular",
  "meeting_types": [
    "regular"
  ],
  "title": "Conroe ISD Board Meeting — June 4, 2019",
  "date_display": "June 4, 2019",
  "type_display": "Regular Meeting",
  "types_display": [
    "Regular Meeting"
  ],
  "item_count": 0,
  "has_agenda": false,
  "has_notes": true,
  "pdf_filename": null,
  "packet_url": null,
  "generated_at": "2026-06-18T19:45:20.597866Z",
  "highlights": "",
  "sections": [],
  "agenda_breakdown_md": "",
  "meeting_notes_md": "# Conroe ISD Board Meeting — 2019-06-04\n*Regular Meeting — Unofficial Notes*\n*Based on auto-generated transcript. Not an official record.*\n*Generated 2026-03-27 21:57 UTC*\n\n---\n\n# Unofficial Meeting Notes\n## Conroe ISD Board Workshop – June 4, 2019\n\n*These are unofficial notes based on an auto-generated transcript of the meeting. They may contain errors or omissions.*\n\n---\n\n## Attendees\n- **Dr. Curtis Null**, Superintendent\n- **Darrin Rice**, Chief Financial Officer\n- **Dr. Chris Heinz**, Deputy Superintendent (Academics)\n- **Dr. Winkler**, district administrator (early education)\n- **EZ** (likely Erich Ziehe), Facilities/Construction\n- **Board Members referenced by name**: Skeeter (President Williams), John Husbands, Scott Moore, Scott Kidd, Ray (last name unclear), Datren (last name unclear), Mr. Inman, Mr. Sanders (Linda also briefly mentioned)\n\n---\n\n## Key Topics Discussed\n\n### 1. House Bill 3 (HB 3) Legislative Update\n\n**Overview:** HB 3 represents a major overhaul of Texas school finance. Mr. Rice emphasized that information is still arriving daily and is subject to change. A phone call received at 3:30 PM the day of the meeting revealed a **$7 million error** (to the district's disadvantage) in funding calculations from Region 13's spreadsheet — specifically a Golden Penny miscalculation related to the district's prior tax rate swap from $1.06 to $1.04.\n\n**Key HB 3 Provisions Discussed:**\n\n- **Basic Allotment Increase:** From $5,140 to $6,160 per ADA\n- **Tax Compression:** 7-cent compression of Tier 1 M&O tax rate (from $1.04 to $0.97)\n- **Net Revenue Increase:** Approximately **$33.6 million** after accounting for lost local tax revenue (first decrease in local tax revenue since 2005)\n- **Property Tax Relief:** $5 billion statewide; district will see first tax revenue decrease since 2005\n- **Teacher Pay:** $2 billion statewide; requirement to use 30% of revenue gain for compensation increases\n- **Full-Day Pre-K:** Mandated for eligible 4-year-olds (discussed in detail below)\n\n**New/Changed Allotments:**\n- **Compensatory Education:** New tiered index based on census blocks (weights .225 to .275) — still awaiting details from TEA\n- **Bilingual/Dual Language:** New weights generating ~$1.5 million\n- **Career & Technology (CTE):** Extended to 7th grade (from 9th); generates ~$1.5 million\n- **Transportation:** Changed from linear density to $1.00/mile — roughly break-even at $7.3 million\n- **Dyslexia Allotment (NEW):** Weight of .01; district dyslexia students grew from 2,342 (2016-17) to 3,244 (current year)\n- **Fast-Growth School District Allotment (NEW):** Weight of .04 for total ADA; generates **$14 million** — state's offset for moving to current-year property values and repealing Cost of Education Index\n- **Dropout Recovery:** Still determining if district qualifies\n\n**Repealed Allotments:**\n- **Gifted and Talented:** $2 million lost (program must still be maintained)\n- **High School Allotment:** $4.7 million lost — significant impact on high school budgets\n- **Staff Allotment:** ~$1.6 million lost (helped with insurance costs)\n\n**Other Significant Changes:**\n- **Move to current-year property values** (elimination of one-year lag) — district will feel this impact in 2020-21; major concern expressed\n- **Cost of Education Index repealed** — study ordered for possible future reinstatement\n- **Golden Pennies increased from 6 to 8** — district currently accesses 4; can add one penny with unanimous board vote (no TRE required); additional pennies would require a Tax Ratification Election\n- **Recapture:** District has moved further from Chapter 41/49 threshold\n\n---\n\n### 2. Full-Day Pre-Kindergarten Mandate\n\n**Dr. Heinz presented implementation challenges:**\n\n- **Current enrollment projection:** 1,468 pre-K students in half-day sessions across 25 campuses\n- **Expected growth:** ~850 current kindergarteners would have been eligible for pre-K; going full-day will increase enrollment\n- **Eligibility expanded:** Now includes children of any CISD teacher (in addition to existing criteria: socioeconomic need, English language learners, military, foster, homeless, Texas Star Award recipients)\n- **Classroom need:** Approximately **65-70 additional classrooms** needed (roughly another campus worth of space)\n- **Staffing:** Currently 49.5 allocations (29.5 regular ed, 20 bilingual); 19 PPCD allocations — numbers would roughly double\n- **Current payroll:** ~$3.25 million; would increase significantly\n- **Classroom outfitting cost:** ~$22,000 per classroom\n- **Transportation impact:** Currently ~400 AM / ~500 PM riders (~60-70%); would essentially double morning pickup and afternoon dropoff\n- **Additional impacts being studied:** Clinic staffing, lunch capacity, specials rotation, conference period solutions (11 campuses lack gyms), curriculum development for full-day program\n\n**Waiver Options:** Districts may seek two 3-year waivers. Administration recommended exercising the first waiver, noting the district cannot implement fully overnight. Discussion of possible pilot programs at 1-2 campuses.\n\n**Board Discussion:**\n- **Mr. Moore** asked about eligibility changes — confirmed same as current plus teacher's children\n- **Mr. Kidd** asked about the rationale — Dr. Heinz and Dr. Winkler cited research on early education impact, social-emotional readiness, and learning readiness\n- **Mr. Husbands** asked about the classroom need's impact on prior bond/demographic planning — **Dr. Heinz confirmed this was NOT planned for in the last bond**; represents roughly another campus worth of space\n- Discussion of district-wide early childhood center concept — acknowledged feasibility in dense areas but not district-wide due to geographic spread\n- **Board member** asked about pushback from other districts — administration noted the legislature did not consult districts; \"it wasn't really a conversation\"\n\n---\n\n### 3. Teacher/Employee Compensation\n\n**HB 3 Requirement:** 30% of FSP revenue gain ($10.08 million minimum) must go to compensation increases for non-administrative full-time employees. Of that, 75% ($7.56 million) must go to teachers, counselors, nurses, and librarians, prioritizing those with 5+ years experience. The remaining 25% ($2.52 million) may go to other full-time non-administrative employees.\n\n**Five scenarios presented** (after $7M adjustment):\n\n| Scenario | Teachers/Librarians/Nurses/Counselors | All Other FT (non-admin) | Administrators | Total Cost |\n|----------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------|----------------|------------|\n| 1 | 3.5% ($8.4M) | 3.0% ($2.4M) | 2.5% ($1.6M) | $12.4M |\n| 2 | 4.0% ($9.6M) | 3.0% ($2.4M) | 2.5% ($1.6M) | $13.6M |\n| 3 | 4.0% ($9.6M) | 3.5% ($2.8M) | 3.0% ($1.96M) | $14.36M |\n| 4 | 4.5% | 3.5% | 3.0% | ~$15.4M |\n| 5 | 5.0% | 4.0% | 3.0% | ~$17-20M |\n\n*Note: Scenario 3 was initially recommended before the $7M error; after the error, administration recommended backing down to approximately Scenario 3 level or below.*\n\n**Significant Board Discussion:**\n- **Mr. Moore** raised concerns about classification of LSSPs, speech pathologists, instructional coaches, and RTI specialists — where do they fall in these categories?\n- **Dr. Null** acknowledged this is an active debate; campus-based people in top line, AE pay scale positions (LSSPs, diagnosticians) still being sorted\n- **Mr. Husbands** noted historical raises have been ~3% per year; expressed caution about long-term sustainability given uncertain future funding\n- **Skeeter (President Williams)** confirmed this is new state money requiring raises; without HB 3, no annual raise mandate exists\n- **Mr. Sanders** leaned toward Scenario 1 ($12.4M), citing uncertainty about funding beyond two years and other unfunded needs\n- **Mr. Kidd** suggested 4%/4%/3% (~$14.7M)\n- **Mr. Husbands** suggested 3.5%/3.5%/2.5%, expressing concern about unknown future costs\n- **Discussion about classification:** Board members debated whether people who interact directly with students should receive the higher raise tier regardless of their pay scale classification\n- **Mr. Williams** suggested a principle: \"If kids sit in front of them\" they should be in the higher raise category\n- **Mr. Inman** suggested 3.5% across the board for all categories to eliminate classification disputes\n- **Dr. Null** proposed a possible solution: use AE pay scale boxes — counselors are in box 3, so everyone in AE boxes 1-3 gets the teacher raise; boxes 4+ get the administrative raise\n\n**No vote taken** — administration directed to run additional scenarios and return with refined numbers. A July workshop was suggested.\n\n---\n\n### 4. Preliminary Budget Overview (2019-2020)\n\n**Budget Objectives:**\n- Open Suchma Elementary and 11th grade at Grand Oaks High School\n- Competitive compensation plan\n- Safety/security: adding ~5 school resource officers and a corporal position\n- Establish district-wide maintenance fund\n\n**Key Budget Numbers:**\n- **General Fund Balance (end of 2018):** $138 million\n- **Certified Property Values:** Estimated 5.5% increase (~$1.97B increase, total ~$37.7B)\n- **Student Growth:** 1,350 new students projected (total 64,187; 94% ADA)\n\n**Revenue/Expenditure Summary (HB 3 scenario):**\n| Item | Amount |\n|------|--------|\n| Beginning Revenue | $502.27M |\n| Local Revenue Change | -$5.07M (first decrease since 2005) |\n| State Funding Increase | +$38.72M |\n| **Total Revenue** | **$535.92M** |\n| Beginning Expenditures | $495.46M |\n| Salary Increases (Scenario 3) | ~$14.36M |\n| Personnel for Growth | $10.5M |\n| Pre-K/Dyslexia/Comp Ed Programs | $5.0M |\n| Other Expenses | $4.5M |\n| **Total Expenditures** | **$529.82M** |\n| **Potential Available Funds** | **$6.1M** |\n\n**Proposed uses of surplus:** Retain for new HB 3 programs, buffer against further changes, support 2020-21 budget uncertainties, unforeseen expenditures.\n\n**Fund Balance Proposed Uses ($25M available above 25% threshold):**\n- $10 million to establish general fund maintenance program\n- $8.5 million to finalize two land purchases under contract\n- $1.5 million for school buses (~14-15 new buses with A/C and seat belts)\n\n**Dillard's/Mall Tax Refund Issue:** District must issue ~$625,000 refund to Dillard's due to appraisal dispute. All box stores in the mall fought their appraised values; additional refund amounts for other stores still pending. An appraisal district employee who improperly raised values is no longer employed there.\n\n---\n\n### 5. Tax Rate Discussion\n\n**Current vs. Proposed Tax Rate:**\n\n| | M&O Rate | Debt Service Rate | Total |\n|--|----------|-------------------|-------|\n| Current | $1.04 | $0.24* | $1.28 |\n| HB 3 Compressed | $0.97 | $0.24 | $1.21 |\n| Potential (with I&S increase) | $0.97 | $0.265 | $1.235 |\n\n*The $0.24 reflects the prior 2-cent swap.*\n\n**Key Issue — M&O Transfer to Debt Service:**\n- District currently transfers $10M annually from general fund to debt service to buy down debt\n- HB 3 appears to **prohibit** using M&O surplus to pay down debt\n- If prohibited, district would need to increase debt service tax rate by ~2.5 cents to replace that $10M\n- Net taxpayer impact: still a ~4.5 cent decrease overall\n- **Mr. Sanders** noted community support (specifically Texas Patriots Pact) for this approach if it meant using the freed-up $10M for maintenance items paid from cash rather than bond financing\n- Board discussion about the long-term benefits of paying cash for shorter-lifespan items (technology, painting, carpets, buses) rather than financing them through bonds\n- Several board members and Dr. Null discussed the historical context — previous boards prioritized lowest possible tax rate; this approach adds debt reduction as a co-priority\n\n**Future Budget Timeline:**\n- July 10: Budget presentation to District-Level Planning and Decision-Making Committee\n- July 16: Committee recommendation to Board\n- August 6: First public hearing\n- August 20: Second public hearing and budget adoption\n\n---\n\n### 6. Attendance Zone/Rezoning Discussion\n\n**Dr. Heinz presented several planning maps:**\n\n**Conroe Area Junior Highs (Washington/Peet/Stockton):**\n- Peet at ~1,450-1,500 students (at capacity); Washington at ~800-900\n- Stockton Junior High opening in 2020-21\n- Rezoning process to begin this school year with target completion around January\n- Board noted an unusual attendance zone outlier — a purple section far from Peet that has \"always\" been in Peet's zone; **Mr. Sanders** noted the long bus ride and suggested not presenting maps with such anomalies going forward\n\n**South County High Schools (Grand Oaks, Oak Ridge, College Park, The Woodlands):**\n- **Contingency map shown** (if no successful bond): Would move Harper's Landing to Oak Ridge feeder, shift some Woodlands areas to College Park, and some College Park areas to Woodlands\n- Dr. Null emphasized: **\"This is not a plan that we want to do\"** — it is a contingency if no future bond passes for additions at Woodlands and College Park high schools\n- Using all Oak Ridge capacity would eliminate strategic flexibility in South County\n- Junior high solutions also needed for York and Moorhead — junior high seats described as \"most premium\" currently\n\n**The Woodlands Elementary Rezoning:**\n- Overcrowding at Ride, Glen Loch; Powell and Lamar growing\n- Capacity available at Galatas, Deretchin, Tough\n- Administration recommended waiting until bond outcome before proceeding, as high school feeder changes would alter the elementary approach\n- **Mr. Husbands** pushed for addressing the broader Woodlands elementary shift rather than piecemeal fixes\n\n**No votes or decisions taken** — informational/planning discussion only.\n\n---\n\n### 7. Conroe High School Master Plan Options\n\n**Background:** Phase 1 of the master plan (from 2015 bond) is complete (new science wing, band hall). Phase 2 was included in the failed May bond at ~$147 million.\n\n**Three options presented:**\n\n**Option A — Full Original Master Plan (~$150M):**\n- Flips front entrance to back side\n- Relocates athletics to current freshman annex location\n- Moves CTE closer to Hwy 105\n- All students under one roof\n- Addresses all 27 elevation changes\n- Extends building life 60+ years\n- New CTE, athletics, competition gym, facade matching\n- *Con:* High upfront cost; significant change for community\n\n**Option B — Phase the Master Plan (Not Recommended):**\n- Break remaining work into Phase 2 and Phase 3\n- Would keep school under construction ~8 more years\n- Would require asking for Conroe HS money in multiple bonds\n- Would cost significantly more due to extended timeline\n- **Administration does not recommend this option**\n\n**Option C — Reduced Scope Master Plan (~$120M):**\n- Still gets all students under one roof\n- New CTE programs, new competition gym\n- Athletics stays in current area (renovated, not rebuilt)\n- Keeps Pit Gym and potentially front door on Hwy 105\n- Shortest timeline, least expensive\n- *Cons:* Limited facade changes; retains two 60-year-old gyms; parking remains asphalt; library not addressed; many elevation changes remain unmitigated; car rider line may remain on Hwy 105\n- **Savings of ~$30M vs. Option A** (administration had hoped for $50-60M savings but that wasn't achievable)\n\n**No difference in student capacity** between A and C (~3,500-4,000 with 9th grade center).\n**No difference in long-term maintenance** — major equipment already installed for both scenarios.\n\n**Board Discussion:**\n- **Mr. Sanders** strongly favored Option A, citing 60-year investment, noting Conroe HS's 117th graduation, and arguing the community deserves matching brick throughout\n- **Mr. Husbands** expressed strong support for Option A, addressed community confusion about the project:\n  - Renovation is because the building is worn out, not to avoid building a new high school\n  - A new Conroe-area high school will still be needed regardless\n  - Dividing Conroe HS now would drop it from 6A classification\n  - Addressed racial concerns directly: splitting wouldn't change school demographics as some assume\n  - Emphasized safety concerns about students crossing 7-lane Hwy 105\n- **Mr. Moore** asked about long-term maintenance differences — EZ confirmed no difference in equipment quality between options\n- **EZ** noted the $30M difference comes primarily from site work (parking, fields) and not mitigating elevation changes, rather than from major building systems\n- **Mr. Inman** asked about Grand Oaks cost comparison — Grand Oaks was $160M for 3,000-student capacity; Dr. Null noted Conroe HS is not an apples-to-apples comparison due to larger size, CTE programs, renovation complexity, and elevation challenges\n\n**No vote taken** — Dr. Null indicated he would present both options to community members for feedback.\n\n---\n\n## Upcoming Dates\n- **July 10:** Budget presentation to District-Level Planning and Decision-Making Committee\n- **July 16:** Committee recommendation to Board\n- **August 6:** First public hearing on budget\n- **August 20:** Second public hearing and budget adoption\n- **Potential July Workshop** to be scheduled given volume of unresolved issues\n\n---\n\n## Items Flagged for Follow-Up\n1. **$7 million calculation error** — further verification of all funding formulas needed; additional changes expected\n2. **Salary scenario refinement** — administration to develop additional scenarios based on board feedback (3.5%/3.5%/2.5%; 4%/4%/3%; across-the-board 3.5%; classification adjustments for AE pay scale)\n3. **M&O-to-debt-service transfer legality** — legal clarification needed on whether current $10M annual transfer is permitted under HB 3\n4. **Current-year property values mechanism** — still unclear how comptroller certification process will work\n5. **Appraisal district data** — Mr. Rice awaiting breakdown of how much of 5.5% value increase is new construction vs. existing property reappraisal\n6. **Mall/Dillard's refunds** — additional box store refund amounts still pending\n7. **Pre-K implementation plan** — transportation, staffing, facilities, curriculum all under development; pilot program being considered\n8. **Fast-growth district qualification** — district currently in top 25% but could potentially drop out\n9. **Conroe High School** — Dr. Null to gather community feedback on Options A and C\n10. **Bond election** — no formal decision made; November 2019 referenced as potential date; multiple planning scenarios contingent on bond outcome"
}